Edwin Cortez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 20, 2022
• Docket: 05-21-00661-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 20, 2022

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00661-CR

EDWIN CORTEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 005-86485-2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne,1 and Smith Opinion by Justice Schenck Cortez appeals the county court’s order denying his motion to suppress. After

the county court denied his motion to suppress, Cortez pleaded guilty to possession

of marijuana in an amount of less than two ounces. The county court found Cortez

guilty and assessed his punishment at ninety days of confinement. In his sole issue

on appeal, Cortez appeals the county court’s order denying his motion to suppress

arguing: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support some of the county court’s

1 Justice Leslie Osborne was a member of the panel and participated in the oral argument of this appeal. After argument, she resigned from this Court. Justice Osborne did not participate in the decision of this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.1(b). findings of fact; and (2) the county court erred when it concluded (a) the initial stop

and detention were reasonable, and (b) there was probable cause to support the

officer’s warrantless search of his vehicle because it was based the officer’s belief

that he smelled “illegal marijuana,” which has the same odor as “legal hemp.”

This appeal involves the same facts and similar legal arguments as Cortez v.

State, No. 05-21-00664-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 20, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem.

op.). In that appeal, Cortez challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to

suppress in the case against him for possession of methamphetamine in an amount

of less than one gram. We decide that appeal by a separate opinion also issuing

today because it arises out of a different trial court. However, that opinion addresses

all of the appellate arguments raised by Cortez in this appeal.2 For the reasons

explained in that case, we conclude the county court did not err when it denied

Cortez’s motion to suppress. Because the issues are determined by the law set forth

in our other opinion, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Cortez, No. 05-21-

00664-CR; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

2 We note that the county court adopted the district court’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law. –2– We affirm the county court’s order.

/David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47

210661F.U05

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

EDWIN CORTEZ, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Collin County, Texas No. 05-21-00661-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 005-86485- 2020. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justice Smith participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered December 20, 2022

–4–